Perhaps the most significant EEO issue percolating through the federal court system right now is whether Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination encompasses discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. There is now disagreement among federal appellate courts on this issue and the U.S. Supreme Court will likely decide the question at some point. In the interim, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has taken the position that Title VII does prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. In addition, several federal courts sitting in Pennsylvania have agreed with the EEOC’s position. See EEOC v. Scott Medical Center (W.D.Pa. 2016).

Amidst all the recent focus on how federal courts are interpreting Title VII, little attention has been paid to whether the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA) extends protection to the LGBTQ community. In guidance issued on August 2, 2018, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) made its position on the issue clear. The PHRC’s “Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Sex Under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act” states that the “prohibitions contained in the PHRA and related case law against discrimination on the basis of sex…prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex assigned at birth, sexual orientation, transgender identity, gender transition, gender identity, and gender expression.” The Guidance further states that the Commission will accept sex discrimination complaints based on this expanded definition of the term. The PHRC does not address some of the more thorny related questions, such as whether employer health plans must cover gender transition surgery as a matter of state law.

Notably, the PHRC Guidance further states that respondents (e.g. employers) who believe the PHRA violates their free exercise of religion “are free to avail themselves of the protections found within the Religious Freedom Protection Act (RFPA).” The Guidance outlines how a respondent should go about raising an objection under the RFPA. Some may remember that the RFPA was the statutory basis for the Supreme Court to limit the scope of the Affordable Care Act’s “contraception mandate.”

In light of the PHRC’s recent guidance, employers should carefully consider whether it’s time to revise their policies governing harassment and equal employment opportunity. In addition, it may be advisable to revamp harassment prevention training programs to specifically address LGBTQ concerns. If you have any questions regarding the PHRC’s Guidance, please don’t hesitate to contact any member of our Labor and Employment Practice Group.